Posted by yxibow on February 7, 2006, at 0:31:04
In reply to Brand name Klonopin, posted by iamhappy on February 6, 2006, at 17:48:55
> Ok, is it just me or has anyone else noticed a HUGE difference between generic Klonopin and brand name?
I've never taken brand name benzodiazepines of any form. The last benzodiazepine besides Xanax XR to have a final approval date was Xanax, in 1985, introduced in 1980. There have been no new benzodiazepines produced. To understand the bioequivalency standard, one would have to read the FDA's Orange Book http://www.fda.gov/cder/orange/obannual.pdf
(warning, large PDF file)Drugs basically can have a bioequivalency of 80% to 125% (1/80%). But it gets more complicated, with confidence values that basically render tablets nearly to 100%.
The problem isn't so much that the drugs differ, the active ingredients are there... the problem lies in how the drug is delivered. The "inactive ingredients". E.g. the following drug contains cellulose, magnesium stearate, lactose... FD&C color.... These may affect how a drug is absorbed in the body and each manufacturer may use a different set of them.
Brand name Klonopin is completely outdated and a waste of money as is most brand name benzodiazepines. It also is a subtle drug and you will not feel a "kick" like some other benzodiazepines. If a doctor really believes, or if a patient really believes that the generic is not performing the same, then prescribe a slightly higher amount of the generic. The savings between brand name benzodiazepines and their original counterparts, some of which are now 46 years old, can be as much as 10 times the price.
In fact, a dose of some generic benzodiazepines, depending on the manufacturer, can be less than the copay value.
poster:yxibow
thread:607050
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060205/msgs/607134.html